About your Search

20120930
20121008
STATION
MSNBC 9
MSNBCW 9
CSPAN2 4
CSPAN 2
KGO (ABC) 1
WRC (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 34
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)
. it was the theory that president george w. bush, remember this, had a listening device implanted in his suit while he was debating john kerry. the problem with that george w. bush conspiracy theory of course was always that john kerry absolutely destroyed george w. bush in that debate when bush was supposedly wearing a listening device. so if he was wearing a listening device whoever was supposedly whispering in the president's ear was not whispering things that helped him. that's always the part i didn't understand. but the 2012 version of that theory now is that mitt romney cheated in the debate against president obama this week not by having somebody feed him the answers through an ear piece but rather by bringing the illegal crib sheet on to the debate stage with him. you see, previous debate rules have set out very clearly that, quote, no props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by any candidate and yet have a look at this damning evidence. this is at the very beginning of the debate on wednesday night and as you'll be able to s
a challenger is 1992. the incumbent president is george h.w. bush. his major party challenger is a young man from arkansas. there's also this other guy with the big ears and it's the other guy with the big ears who wins the first debate. >> the day after, victory for perot. clinton hold his own. trouble for the president. there's no one scorecard for determining who won and who lost last night, but a consensus does seem to be emerging. ross perot, the star of the night because no one knew what to expect. bill clinton just good enough. and president bush, he'll have to do much better. >> by morning, what had been last night's analysis had become conventional wisdom. in the headlines. on the "today" show. >> clinton did what he had to do and bush did not. >> and in instant polls. >> those polls show the president finishing third among people who watched the first debate. >> the bush people are getting very, very tired of hearing that the president did not hit a home run last night. >> so at this point as a nation, in our entire history as a country, we have had four national attempts of a chal
, there was a great deal of national outrage at the slow response and secondly, that president george w. bush-- >>> you said this in 2007 -- [overlapping dialogue] >> let me finish my point. >> juan, this is a lie. >> george w. bush went to jackson square and he said, there is a history of inequality and racism that has its roots in what happened here and we as americans have to do something to overcome that inequity. >> okay. that's all great. but this is senator obama, who lied did the stafford act, $6.9 billion -- >> he didn't lie about it. >> yes, he did. >> he did not. look at record! the record shows-- >>> let him finish. >> he lies about the way the stafford act is applied. he's either that smart, the smartest man and needs to be president or he is lying. and he lied about it because the $6.9 billion went there. >> sean: we have to take a break -- we have more of the tape that we haven't run yet that are pretty eye opening. the video this was reported on. the media was in at the speech, but they doesn't pick up on the obvious things. when the transcript was released, it was only the pr
in 2004 when john kerry was challenging george w. bush and we saw a similar debate performance where the challenger came out swinging, did very, very well. the incumbent president was a little bit on his heels mainly because sometime you're not used to being challenged by somebody in that type of setting. so we move to the next debate. it seems like mitt romney did very well on style, although substance might have been a different matter. >> speaking of substance, a lot of people thought this debate was more informative, but did these issues and ideas connect to the voters? >> i think so. you look at this abroad, there were so many statistics that were at issue. i did think it was a very substantive debate, but going on the substantive part, i think the next 24 hours or so, the obama campaign has the opportunity to seize on some of the facts that mitt romney was citing. one of the things he talked about, he said my tax plan isn't going to benefit wealthy high income americans, but every tax analysis out there shows that the wealthiest are going to be the ones who would end up getting
's got to do what george w. bush did in 2000 at one point in the evening and run the board. he's got to win all of these swing states. >> he does. the good news, it's headed the right direction. >> he can do it. >> absolutely. in late september, early october 2000, we were down three to five points. everybody said the campaign was completely screwed up. everybody should be fired. george bush went on to win all three debates, run the tables, as you've said, and turn it around and was up three. so it's absolutely possible. and i think this is big stakes. i mean, this is really an opportunity where people -- >> tonight is -- tonight is a huge debate. it really is. >> it's huge for all the obvious reasons. >> for the obvious reasons. >> but there's a lot of people that have heard a lot about romney and really haven't seen him. >> right. >> tonight they're going to get to see him all alone, mano a mano, and it's a real opportunity for them to get a sense of who he is, what he believes because they've just heard a lot. they haven't seen it. they're going to see it tonight. this is a real o
and advisors and a former advisor to george w. bush. on medicare, romney said the president's plan will limit care. >> this is going to tell people what kind of treatments they can have. >> this board can't make decisions about what treatments are given. that is prohibited in the law. >> the president is right on this one. the payment advisory board can make recommendations on drugs and medical devices that will be covered but there is no legal power to ration care. and the president saying premiums have gone up in a slower rate than any time in 50 years but that is not true. interest to and romney said mitdel income americans have seen income drop by $4300 a year, that is way too high showing it's about half of that. is one man telling more facts or better facts than another? we'll take a look what he says is the big difference. it's the money. >> that is interesting. >> according to a poll, april% of the registered voters said the g.o.p. nominee won. >> and the next debate takes place a week from today in danville, kentucky. abc 7 will air that debate live. >> the president will be in san f
actually make it faster. this is where the obama campaign sees their opportunity. george w. bush, obviously, his prime economic policy was a set of very large tax cuts. they did not have a very positive effect on the economy, even before the recession. it was a very, very weak expansion. and so governor romney has come in and he's proposed very, very large tax cuts again. and he hasn't wanted, in order to get away from the bush part, he hasn't wanted to explain them too much. in fact, paul ryan, his running mate says, the math is just too hard. but it really isn't. and i would imagine the obama administration, or obama's going to go through tonight, you really only need to know two numbers about romney's tax plan, one is $480 billion. that's the cost of it in 2015, just to pick one year. and the other is $251 billion. that's the amount that will go to very wealthy families. now, mitt romney's promise, his tax plan won't cost a dime on the deficit. so he somehow needs to get $480 billion out of the tax code by closing breaks and loopholes, seems like the mortgage interest deduction, and also
was sort of unfairly characterize this as racism. even george w. bush said coming out of katrina, the remarks he made actually echoed obama's word for word in terms of highlighting racial bias in what was happening on the ground of new orleans post- hurricane katrina. that is actually not incorrect. what he was saying is not incorrect. but characterizing it as him being a racist, they have done nothing to characterize him as treating audiences differently, nor has he played the race card on the campaign. that is an important distinction. >> were president obama was saying to that crowd was designed to inspire feelings of racial animosity and what he was saying was factually incorrect. this is why he is either a liar or an incompetent. the senate had just waved this two weeks prior. megyn: that's what i'm saying, -- >> under george bush, they denied them the same consideration was given to manhattan after september 11 and florida after hurricane andrew. it was wrong. it was factually incorrect. he either knew that or he didn't know that but should have. this is a body in the senat
, george w. bush had signed a law. two years earlier, -- i'm sorry, four years earlier, the supreme court had affirmed the constitutionality of it. but in a story that i tell at greater length, the conservative majority converted a relatively minor dispute over an obscure film put out by a nonprofit corporation into a complete rewriting of our campaign finance laws, based on the dual metaphors that corporations rule people and money isn't speech. those two ideas are at the heart of citizens united, and they are the story. that decision is very much the story of the 2012 presidential and perhaps even more importantly, lower ballot races. that brings us to the health care case. now, there were some so-called experts and pundits who watch the oral argument of that case and said, in my defense, i would just like to say, whatever, okay? [laughter] it was basic cable, all right? [laughter] you don't pay extra for cnn. >> no, it was somewhat more informed of a position on that. it looked to me during most of the arguments that the five conservatives were very much leaning against the obama admin
judicial restraint. but citizens united was a case where just a few years earlier, george w. bush had signed the mccain-feingold law or in just two years earlier, or more than two as i think, for years earlier the supreme court has affirmed the constitutionality of the mccain-feingold law. but in a story i tell at greater length in trenton, the conservative majority converted a relatively minor dispute over an obscure film put out by a nonprofit corporation into a complete rewriting of our campaign finance laws, based on the dual metaphors that corporations are people, and money is speech. and those two ideas are at the heart of citizens united, and they are the story -- and that decision is very much the story of the 2012 presidential and perhaps even more importantly, lower about race -- lower ballot raise. that brings us to the health care case you're now, there were some so-called experts and pundits who watched the oral argument of that case and said well, it's quite clear that the law is going to be overturned because of the questions. and in my defense -- [laughter] i would jus
beat up george w. bush in the first debate back if 2004. but it was clear that mitt romney got a big win because of his strong debate performance. >> or walter mondale on ronald reagan for that matter. onto the conspiracy theory, jared bernstein, we heard from him earlier, he told me also this doesn't deserve any oxygen at all but others keep piling on. are you surprised by these claims from prominent people, well-respected people in industry? >> well, there are two different sort of sets on the republican side here. one is the jack welch side, the steve forbes, the people who are promulgating this conspiracy. the others are the folks who are serious economists. you talk to jared bernstein on the left. but douglashall john mccain's former policy adviser says the same thing in a story this morning. elaine child the former george w. bush's labor secretary said the same thing. so serious republicans who understand that these are two totally different surveys, they sort of understand the process and the way bls works there's not really a conspiracy here. >> can i ask you? you've been aro
george w. bush. how close to a reality could is be? >> hard to tell pop probably not the concern many have. remember, as your teaser said, the obama administration did want to close guantanamo within a year and move the detainees to the states. but it was pelosi and harry reid who said you can't use any federal funds to move guantanamo detainees to the united states and you can't use funds to buy or rehab a facility in the united states. jamie: why acquire it? >> there is overcrowding in some federal facilities. this is a well-built relatively new facility. it's been sitting dormant. i take them at their word that they want to utilize it to ease overcrowding and to bring jobs to the area. but the scepticism that some have is that the obama administration will make an end run around federal law, democrats and republicans, and try to close gitmo on the chief. jamie: there is so much overcrowding of the state prisons that the governor is releasing some prisoners locally that should potentially be behind bars, residents of illinois may argue. why not leave that opportunity or even assist
a look at a debate moment back in 2000 with al gore and george w. bush. "washington journa[video clip] >> would you to agree on a national patient's bill of rights? >> absolutely not. there is one bipartisan bill that is now pending in the congress. and the insurance companies support the other bill. they like it because it does not accomplish what needs to be accomplished, to give the decisions back to the doctors and nurses and give -- and let you go to the nearest emergency room. it lets you see a specialist if you need to. it had strong bipartisan support but is being blocked by the republican leadership in the congress and i specifically would like to know whether governor bush will support the dingell-norwood bill. >> do you see the differences between the two of you? >> i can get something positive done on behalf of the people. that is what this campaign is about. it is not just about the issues, is about if you can get something done and i believe i can. [laughter] >> what about the bill? >> i talked about the principles that i think are important in the patient's bill of righ
states. the other factor is that john mccain beat barack obama 55-43 among white voters. george w. bush in 2000 beat al gore among white voters 55-43. the margin is the same. so how did gore and bush essentially tied -- you might not have noticed, bush won that election -- [laughter] in the electoral college to a cool thing in the constitution. 8 years later, what what had been a popular vote tie it becomes a blowout. for mitt romney to win the popular vote, it is going to be by a point or two, if he wins at all. what that says that if we don't as a party figure out how to do much better with minority voters, particularly latinos -- african-americans, it will be hard to get more than 5% of their vote for a while, since the current president is black. they will vote for him. it is understandable. republicans have to do significantly better than we doing right now and in the future we have to do significantly better with latino voters. >> i think it is fair to say that republicans -- if you talk about the business model, the republican political model is not sustainable, the current one.
by the presidential reelected george w. bush, three left-wing billionaires, george soros, peter lewis raise $200 million for a series of organizations together and try to defeat president bush. so this type of structure had been found for a long period of time. another thing gone on even longer with labor union participation, specifically democrats. in election after election, it is the biggest spending of the labor unions. and when karl rove and ed gillespie started looking at the 2010 elections, they realized that while big labor, which is $400 billion to a public president upon the 2008, there was no corollary that existed on the right to spend large amounts of money for house and senate. so karl rove smartly started american crossroads. it was interesting. i was working across her as an and president obama actually attacked carr wrote in february seeking a legal money from china, which was funny. as soon as he said that comeau we saw an uptick in america grassroots funding. the reason for that was president obama had identified us and we ended up shattering her fund raising goals by the 2010
and president carter defeated. i remember interviewing president george h. w. bush and he's a i can't remember clinton and i will ever worked closely together and then barbara bush was refrained in the fifth son. [laughter] now he works with president george w. bush as well. at that time i was interviewing president bush is when i was doing a series of pieces on the president and the constitution and the same set of interviews i interviewed president ford and its the last time i saw hampshire and he said you know, i want to see what's going on in washington after his years in the house of representatives. when i was gonna norti lever of the house and you're father, my father was the majority leader of the house he said when we were a minority and majority leader they go down to feed press club or something and solomon say willie going to argue about clarke's piece said there's a legitimate d date. we genuinely disagree about the means to an end. and it was partisan. for heaven's sake we were the leaders of the party but then we get back and our best friends and go back to the hill and are able
Search Results 0 to 33 of about 34 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)